Why hate Paganism?

[Ahimsa]

I think if you had our entire cultural and spiritual practice systematically exterminated you’d protest too.

Sure, I’d protest – then get back to work re-creating what was destroyed and creating anew.

 

[mjolnir]

Burning pagans? Again, please cite your sources. Are you a believer in the so-called “time of burning”? Are you are that, for example, the majority of those 'burned at the stake" (and while one unjust death is still one too many, the numbers of those martyred were far, far less than your sources give) were either Protestants burning Catholics or other Protestants, or Catholics burning Prostestants? There was no full scale “witch burning”.

Are you denying the Malleus Maleficarum?

Also, the ‘wicca’ as taught today is according to my understanding a blend of ‘researched’ practices which were developed in the mid 20th century. 20th century! No ‘pagan’ today practices anything LIKE the paganism of the 1st millenium. There are few ‘pagans’ even in the 2nd millenium (most were nominally Christian, baptized Christian, but did what are NOW claimed to be ‘pagan’ practices on the side, so to speak. Further, things such as herbalism were not limited strictly to pagans, so to claim for example that a woman who was ‘called’ a witch in some 16th century village was actually a pagan because she gave out ‘love philtres’ or practices abortion is revisionism at its worst. (it is worth noting that so many of what is claimed as Wicca practices or teachings revolve around sex to some degree, not that sex in itself is bad–it is not–but that the function of sex as the free covenant of two married people is completely made separate, in that things such as herbals for abortion, ‘love potions’ etc. were usually used for sexual activities outside the moral confines of sex).

Please read my post concerning Wiccanism… #29

 

[Damascus]

Gnostic hard wiring…that is funny.

Let’s all pray for forgiveness from the Asharim, the Gnostics, the Baal, the native cultures and animists of all time for the meanness done to them by Yahweh and Allah and Jesus. I don’t know who we are to ask forgiveness from when it come to Buddhism since they have no God, but let’s do it anyway.

Anthropology. Humbug.

CDL

Baal Humbug that is.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, when I get into my automobile to go driving, I often think to myself that in a way it’s kind of a shame that we don’t have horse powered transportation. After all, horses were around for thousands of years as transport.

But then I think, you know, people who WANT to use horses still can for the most part. They may have to make a little more effort than just going out and catching a wild horse (although I think that was a lot harder than it might sound today). It may cost a little more (but then again, gas and insurance etc. cost too.)

So you know, if people really WANTED to do things the OLD way, they could (look at the Amish).

If people really had WANTED to keep to a particular belief, they could. It would have been maybe a little difficult, but it could have been done. Even today there are plenty of Native American cultures, beliefs, languages that are still used. In Spain the Basques still speak their language. In Africa, plenty of tribes still hold to farming or hunting practices thousands of years old.

If something is worthwhile, it is not going to be ‘superseded’.

Why I believe that wicca will ultimately fail as ‘paganism’ is that ‘paganism’ was not superseded; the pagans CHOOSE conversion. You probably don’t want to believe it, and obviously there were INDIVIDUALS who didn’t choose (just as there are individuals even today who believe the earth is flat for example), but the majority ultimately freely chose. Those who did not freely choose may have suffered (suffering happens, ask your friendly Buddist as well as your friendly Christian).

What is offered now as ‘paganism’ isn’t really paganism, it’s a reaction against religion, especially Christianity but against any other that is perceived of as a ‘threat’. There are no people out there who really BELIEVE in Thor, or in Zeus, or even in a real living “Mother-goddess”; because while all of these beliefs have some part in innate truth of Creation and Creator, none of them possessed fullness. Christianity does. . .and the pagans chose Christianity.

Personally I think most of them would be royally ticked to see people who do NOT believe as they do but are claiming that because they hold covens, or chant spells, or plant herbs, that they are pagans.

 

[irishmac]

And I don’t think you can provide the Malleus Malificarum as a trustworthy source. That book was written during the Renaissance by two Dominican inquisitors, Kramer and Sprenger, that claimed to have received a Papal decree to write it. The main Renaissance Papal writing on witchcraft was *Summis desiderantes *(Pope Innocent VIII, 1484), which gave these two Dominicans personal power to combat witchcraft in Germany. These two wrote the work, incorporating segments of the Directorium Inquisitorum from 1376 and the Formicarius from 1435. However, the book was full of doctrine that was inconsistant with the doctrines of Catholicism. Henry Kramer was condemned by the Inquisition in 1490. I believe that the Malleus Malificarum was placed on the Index of Forbidden Texts, as well. Therefore, it is apparent to me that the Church isn’t responsible for the wrath of Renaissance era folk and their hatred of the peaceful Vandals, Goths, Mongols, Celts, Angles, etc. I think those groups were traveling around, evangelizing the peace of their god/gods/godess/godesses!

 

[brotherhrolf]

most if not all of those religions are gone. effectivelly killed off by the aggression of Christianity over the years.

Which is why the Christians of the ninth through eleventh centuries had this wonderful prayer “From the fury of the Norseman, O Lord, deliver us!” And it was those aggresive Christian Saxons and Irish, thumping their chests in the marshes and deep woods of Mercia, Kent, Connacht, etc. whomping up on those nice, peace loving, equality of sexes, Norse.

Methinks someone needs to review their revisionist history. BTW I don’t run around with a name like Hrolf without knowing my history and my mythology. The “forced” conversions of the worshippers of the Aesir did not come at the hands of some mace wielding Christian monk but at the direct command of various Norse kings who ordered their subjects to convert. Let’s have a little historical honesty here.

 

[Damascus]

You never addressed my question on how you think Christians will harm you or other Pagans now or in the near or far future.

I guess you can’t.

False accusations.

False religion.

Simple as that.

 

[rr1213]

I still don’t understand who, or what, you worship as a Pagan. Do you have a deity and who is he/she/it?

 

[ricko]

Axial Age, Stone Age, Bronze Age, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, witches, warlocks, wiccans, etc, etc.

Goodness!! I think what we have here is failure to see the forest cause of all the trees!

 

[Damascus]

Axial Age, Stone Age, Bronze Age, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, witches, warlocks, wiccans, etc, etc.

Goodness!! I think what we have here is failure to see the forest cause of all the trees!

Stone age…

Meet the Flintstones, have a yabba dabba do time, a dabba do time, have a ----old time!

Meet the Pagan apologist who can not answer a question…

Any takers on Paganism?

 

[Ahimsa]

Any takers on Paganism?

Depends upon what you mean by ‘paganism’.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I still don’t understand who, or what, you worship as a Pagan. Do you have a deity and who is he/she/it?

Mjolnir is the name of the Norse god Thor’s war hammer. Unless I am mistaken, this person is an adherent of the Aesir - the Norse gods. Which are the equivalent of the old Indo-European gods with some variations. So, Odin = Wotan = Jupiter = Zeus. Thor = Thunor = Neptune = Poseidon…and so on down the line. Bottom line, my brothers and sisters, we were all Indo-European once and the twelve gods by any stripe are still the twelve gods. And they exist outside of the Semitic background of Christianity.

See! And you folks knocking anthropology. Brother Hrolf is an anthropologist and an historian - got the degrees, been there, done that. Let us limit our discourse to the historic and archaeologic record, shall we? There are significant barriers that exist for all you folk who espouse northern European paganism that do not exist for any of the native north or south American religions. Let us have honest discourse not about what you believe but rather how you can believe given the historic record. This is not about Christianity, this is about being Indo-European - about our common ancestors 5,000 years ago or more. So, come, let us have discourse. But, base your assumptions on the historic and archaeologic record - hard scholarship not what you think should have been the past.

Oh,yeah, been there, done that too. The whole SCA thing. Just in case you were wondering.

 

[Damascus]

Depends upon what you mean by ‘paganism’.

Ahimsa, I think you are the only one I would converse with on this forum at this point.

I have had my neck up to here with the posters and for some reason, I seem to see you have a level headed understanding of things. You and maybe 9other posters here make sense to me. I have found that simply being here has given me nothing but negative thoughts.

I will repeat- I do not hate Pagans. I do not hate anyone. I simply hate what is not of good.

There may be good in anyone. But I can not and will not accept someone who is not genuine.

This OP has not answered my question and in my mind, is a person who does not even believe what he/she is selling here.

I respect someone who has conviction of their belief even if it does not agree with mine.

I have no respect for a windbag.

 

[Zooey]

Now, now!! Play nice, boys & girls, or that terrible Christian, Zooey will have to go back to the ways of her own pagan Celtic ancestors, and they were so " loving" & “peaceful” that the pagan Roman emperor was afraid to invade Ireland…
Said Irish pagans were–you all guessed it!!–burning people alive, for sailing too close to shore…

Darlin’, I don’t hate pagans at all. I just have to laugh, because you all get so :crying: over the wicked Christians hunting down the peaceful pagans, who never did a thing in their lives… Oh! Wait, there was burning alive, which the pagans started. OK, but other than that, there was just…No, that’s right, the Norse were carving the Blood Eagle, but other than that…
:nope: Peaceful pagans??? :nope: You’ve been reading too much Miriam Simos.

 

[kellie]

I believe you personally carry ‘some’ responsibility for the ‘evils’ of your tradition and it’s teachings by the fact of promoting it knowing what you should know.

Christianity was spread throughout europe by the sword of Charlemagne’s armies in service of the Pope. Do your history and you will find it outrageous to see the kind of posturing found on this and many other Axial Religious sites.

I’m only visiting to wake you up to the fact that there are those who haven’t forgotten and demand that europe be given back it’s birthright that was taken from them by Christian Usurpers.

Good luck in getting Europe back

Lucky I am in Australia

 

[kellie]

most if not all of those religions are gone. effectivelly killed off by the aggression of Christianity over the years.

“killed off” or their eyes were opened to the Truth?

 

[Ahimsa]

Bottom line, my brothers and sisters, we were all Indo-European once…

Speak for yourself.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Speak for yourself.

Indeed. Sorry about that. I don’t hate “pagans” but I do wish they would do some basic reading of history or Joseph Campbell, an anthropologist, who wrote extensively on myth. All of the mythologies of ancient Europe (with the exception of the Basque, Lap, and Finns) have common roots.

The only pagans I am aware of that have any room to complain about conversion at the point of a sword were in Central and South America. But this was the policy of the government not HMC. But then I guess the sight of those peace loving Aztecs with their incredibly sharp obsidian blades, gently cutting living, beating hearts out of their sacrificial victims, and then gently kicking the body down the steps of the pyramid should not have appalled Hernan Cortes.

 

[Contarini]

Well let’s but it this way. The Roman Catholic Church did such a great job burning pagans

Burning pagans? When were pagans burned? I agree with you that there was a lot of forced conversion in the early Middle Ages, as Christianity was linked to the expansion of Romanized culture and the development of more centralized monarchies. But burning was, generally speaking, the punishment for heretics or witches, not pagans. And furthermore, the burning of heretics didn’t start in any significant numbers until the 12th century, and the burning of witches until more like the 15th. You quote the Malleus elsewhere as if it were some sort of representative text. But the authors of the Malleus were breaking new ground at the time. They were going against an established consensus which had held that witchcraft was basically a delusion (a culpable one, certainly, but one that needn’t be taken too seriously) since Satan simply didn’t have the power to do that sort of thing.

Since you’re interested in the period of forced conversion of pagans, one hopes you’ve done some study of the Carolingian era (Charlemagne being one of the worst offenders in this respect). Are you familiar with Agobard of Lyons’ treatise on thunderstorms (refuting the idea that they are caused by witchcraft). This was far more typical of the medieval Church’s attitude than the Renaissance superstitions of Kramer.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Think of religions as methods and technologies for greater awareness of reality (whatever that reality is).

Must I? I prefer to think of religions as cultural systems (following Clifford Geertz). It seems to me that you are abstracting and reifying religions, defining them in terms of some sort of essence or basic message that you think you have perceived. That’s always a dead end when engaged in from an “outsider’s” point of view as an objective description of a religion. Of course practitioners of a religion are going to have some idea of what the essence of their religion is. But that’s because they believe that the religion in question is true. If you don’t believe in a religion, then any statement you make about the “real” or “true” or “pure” version of that religion (unless of course you mean the version that most agrees with your own view of the world) is sheer nonsense. You have no way to talk about anything except the phenomena of the religion in question. To go beyond that is both impertinent and futile.

I feel strongly about this because I’m going to be teaching a world religion class next semester (at an evangelical college), and so I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the enterprise of studying a religion as an outsider. The sharpness of my words is not directed specifically at you–it’s a dry run for what I may have occasion to say to my students. . . The greatest trap for anyone studying another religion is to try to isolate this sort of “essence” or core message. It makes the process so much simpler, but it’s deadly for real understanding.

Buddha critized a great deal of the technology of Hinduism and the preconceived metaphysics which is asserted. He was Axial but also a great deal of Hindu adapted to the Axial way of thinking. Read the Rig Vedda and see what I mean. It has more in common with Judaism than Yoga and other enlightenment traditions that came later.

I find this a bit disjointed. The Rig Veda is pre-Axial, and Judaism is thoroughly Axial (in the form we know). So I’m not sure what connections you’re trying to draw here.

I agree of course that Buddha criticized much of Hinduism. But the metaphysics he was criticizing were themselves part of the “Axial” stage of Hinduism. His criticisms of ritual and asceticism are of course typically “Axial.” I’m with you there. But Hinduism was itself deeply shaped by Axial developments, and the Axial message of the Upanishads coexists quite comfortably with what you would probably call “natural paganism” until this day.

The same, in the end, is true of Buddhism. From what I said earlier, you won’t be surprised to hear that I completely reject the idea that “Buddhism” should be reduced to the original teachings of Buddha. Buddhism, like any religion, has grown and developed, and we outsiders have absolutely no right to say that one version of it is more “authentic” than another. As a historical phenomenon (which is the only thing we can study), Buddhism has shown itself to be very adaptable to “natural paganism” (in places like Burma or Tibet–or anywhere Buddhism has taken root for that matter, but those are two particularly good examples). Yes, I know there was conflict in Tibet, but in the end the conflict resulted in accommodation. I’m not saying that there is no tension, but there’s no irreconcilable conflict. Buddha, after all, never denied the existence of gods or spirits–he simply didn’t think they were helpful with regard to the thing that mattered most.

Confucianism departmentalized ethics into a system of behavior where Taoism was attempting to grasp the Tao (i.e. Reality) on it’s terms not ours. Confucianism does it the other way round.

I don’t think Confucians would agree with you! Your ideological presuppositions are making it very hard for you to look at these traditions fairly. You have a fixed idea and you’re bending the evidence to support it. Confucians would say that their codes of behavior are required in order to live according to the Tao, not some attempt to subject the Tao to us.

But again, I’m more interested in actual practice. And practically, Confucianism is a part of traditional religion in China. If there’s one thing we know about ancient Chinese religion, is that the veneration of ancestors was central. And this is central to Confucianism as well.